• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

Like I said, when it's not you and it will never BE you, it's easy to trivialize the right of the state to punish some other disfavored minority for consensual act in their own home.

I am not trivializing anything. People who constantly bring up miscegenation laws and segregation in the context of these issues are the ones trivializing. They are trivializing the extremely repressive conditions racial minorities had to endure for generations. Laws that are rarely enforced and have incredibly minor consequences are nothing compared to the various barbarities unleashed upon the African-American population, and other racial minorities for that matter.

I suppose you mean it's the best for those who have nothing at risk and are quite happy with the status quo. For them, there is NEVER a 'dire need' to address anything affecting other people, not them. And can you name ANY major shift/accomplishment that happened with everyone asking nicely?

Actually, it is best for everyone. Gay people aren't being arrested for getting married or facing any impediments not faced by countless long-term unmarried couples. There is no need for them to pursue such an uncooperative means of getting it legalized. Forcing gay marriage on deeply conservative states through court cases is unnecessary and creates the risk of serious backlash.

Court battles aren't in lieu of anything, they are in addition to those other efforts.

Nonsense, they know legalizing it through the legislature is not going to work in these states and so they are trying to get the courts to force them to legalize it.

And the rest is just a version of, "I can get married and secure those very unique rights, benefits and obligations, in 10 minutes in Vegas. That gays cannot get married at all is no biggee to me, so since I don't care about their so called 'right' to marry, they shouldn't care either! Silly gays. And, hey, if businesses want to deny service to OTHER people, they should just get over it. Why should I care that some other people not like me are getting denied services?"

The rest is suggesting that severely upsetting the social order should usually only happen when the need is great. For racial minorities, the serious disruption to social order that came about through the civil rights movement was completely reasonable given the level of abuse. Here you have people attempting to radically alter the social and political fabric of the country for something that, ultimately, is an unnecessary privilege. For something of such minor importance, a gradual and democratic shift is more appropriate.

I think I understand - the Mozilla guy possesses a freedom of conscience to contribute to a fund that is intended to deny his gay employees the right to marry. I'm with you, he has that right. And he also has the right for his acts directed against the rights of his gay employees to be free from protest, and any real world consequences?

Again the "not free from the consequences" schtick, which is basically an excuse for harassing or intimidating people into conforming or shutting up. You can say that "well they can still say and do these things", but the reality is people are much less likely to do or say those things when it results in harassment and intimidation. In that case it basically means people working there who oppose gay marriage realize they either have to keep their beliefs as secret as possible or forget about advancing their careers. People who have done anything that would put them on the public record as opposing gay marriage would realize that they can only advance so far as at a certain point they would risk being driven out of their position by activists. You can say as much as you want that it is about "consequences", but you cannot objectively argue that such consequences mean people are truly free to express their beliefs. When you face the loss of your livelihood and public shaming for expressing a belief, you are not truly free to express that belief.

The whole thing is no more than, "It's 'obscene' for people to protest unless I share their concerns! Laws against discrimination against LGBT do not apply if the person declares a religious reason for breaking those laws!"

Unfortunately, that is the real problem. Unlike with all previous civil rights movements, there is an ironclad religious basis for opposition. Someone who truly cared about rights and democracy would respect that there is an inherent conflict here with religious liberty and try to accommodate that. Requiring someone who feels homosexuality is a serious sin to go and attend a gay wedding to take pictures or to bake and decorate a cake for a gay wedding amounts to the government telling them they can either act according to their faith or lose their business. It hard to not see how that impacts religious liberty. Where people are forced to do things that conflict directly with their faith under threat of losing their livelihood it amounts to official state pressure to abandon closely-held religious beliefs and amount to an interference in a person's religious liberty. Would you suggest a Christian should also be required to attend a Satanist wedding as refusal would amount to religious discrimination?

Failing to recognize a marriage deprives same-sex couples of various liberties. This includes the previously mentioned death benefits, property inheritance, medical power of attorney, automatic child custody, spousal privilege in a criminal or civil case, etc.

Only spousal privilege is something that cannot be gained through existing legal measures. I would not consider it a right either.

Irrelevant.

It is relevant when you invoke the horrific image of Jim Crow as part of your propaganda.

No, but if the state offers them at all, they must comply with the Equal Protection clause.

Under any objective interpretation they do comply. We do not have much in the way of objective judges, though.

Besides, you're wrong. Race and gender are protected classifications under the 14th amendment. Number of persons in a contract is not.

Religion is a protected classification and there are religions where polygamy is encouraged. It is not the same as children or animals as one is an issue of consent and the other an issue of personhood. Fundamentally different legal principles are at issue there. Polygamy bans could easily be argued as a product of morality being enforced through legislation and as discrimination against religions that encourage polygamy.

So you think interracial marriage bans are constitutional?

The ones that were generally on the books were unconstitutional in various ways. I would say that they were not unconstitutional in the sense of violating a "right to marry". Unlike with gay marriage "bans", which are really just legal definitions of marriage that exclude same-sex marriage along the lines of the traditional definition, interracial marriage bans were more like outright bans that imposed penalties. Whether any version of a law barring recognition to interracial marriage would have constitutional issues depends. Given the difficulties in defining and identifying race, one could argue that it would be an equal protection issue on those grounds. Basically, since certain cases would leave the validity of a marriage subject to individual opinions, it would not really offer people equal protection as a marriage could be considered interracial in one jurisdiction and intraracial in another.
 
Actually, it is best for everyone. Gay people aren't being arrested for getting married or facing any impediments not faced by countless long-term unmarried couples. There is no need for them to pursue such an uncooperative means of getting it legalized. Forcing gay marriage on deeply conservative states through court cases is unnecessary and creates the risk of serious backlash.
You are trivializing someone else's rights because it doesn't personally affect you.
Nonsense, they know legalizing it through the legislature is not going to work in these states and so they are trying to get the courts to force them to legalize it.
Minnesota would like a word with you.
The rest is suggesting that severely upsetting the social order should usually only happen when the need is great. For racial minorities, the serious disruption to social order that came about through the civil rights movement was completely reasonable given the level of abuse. Here you have people attempting to radically alter the social and political fabric of the country for something that, ultimately, is an unnecessary privilege. For something of such minor importance, a gradual and democratic shift is more appropriate.
You are not the arbitrator of what is "important enough" for courts to settle, nor of what is "appropriate" when it comes to a basic civil right. And, bull****. Nothing is being imposed upon you. There is nothing severely upset, nothing radically altered. Two dudes getting married doesn't affect you one bit. This hiding behind phrases like "social order" is just fancy terms from "I DONT PERSONALLY APPROVE."
Unfortunately, that is the real problem. Unlike with all previous civil rights movements, there is an ironclad religious basis for opposition. Someone who truly cared about rights and democracy would respect that there is an inherent conflict here with religious liberty and try to accommodate that.
They said there was a religious basis for opposition to interracial marriage too. And, again, bull****. There isn't a conflict between religious freedom and same-sex marriage and there's nothing to accommodate. Unless you're seriously suggesting to me that if I eat shrimp, it's in conflict with someone else's religion.

Only spousal privilege is something that cannot be gained through existing legal measures. I would not consider it a right either.
Completely wrong. There are literally hundreds, even thousands of benefits at the state and federal level that cannot be duplicated by a contract.

Under any objective interpretation they do comply. We do not have much in the way of objective judges, though.
No, under any objective interpretation they do not comply. The constitutional test for a gender-based classification is substantially related to furthering an important state interest. This test has not been passed. On any objective interpretation, Loving v. Virginia rejected exactly this logic. "Everyone has the same right to marry someone of the [same race|opposite sex]!"

You claimed to be able to identify a compelling state interest for same-sex marriage bans. That's an interesting choice of words, because a compelling state interest can be used to justify a classification on race or religion.

Name that compelling state interest.


Religion is a protected classification and there are religions where polygamy is encouraged. It is not the same as children or animals as one is an issue of consent and the other an issue of personhood. Fundamentally different legal principles are at issue there. Polygamy bans could easily be argued as a product of morality being enforced through legislation and as discrimination against religions that encourage polygamy.
Bans against polygamy are not done on any religious basis. Same-sex marriage bans are done on a basis of gender.


The ones that were generally on the books were unconstitutional in various ways. I would say that they were not unconstitutional in the sense of violating a "right to marry". Unlike with gay marriage "bans", which are really just legal definitions of marriage that exclude same-sex marriage along the lines of the traditional definition, interracial marriage bans were more like outright bans that imposed penalties. Whether any version of a law barring recognition to interracial marriage would have constitutional issues depends. Given the difficulties in defining and identifying race, one could argue that it would be an equal protection issue on those grounds. Basically, since certain cases would leave the validity of a marriage subject to individual opinions, it would not really offer people equal protection as a marriage could be considered interracial in one jurisdiction and intraracial in another.
Gender is easy to identify and discrimination is being done on this basis.
 
Last edited:
I am not trivializing anything. People who constantly bring up miscegenation laws and segregation in the context of these issues are the ones trivializing. They are trivializing the extremely repressive conditions racial minorities had to endure for generations. Laws that are rarely enforced and have incredibly minor consequences are nothing compared to the various barbarities unleashed upon the African-American population, and other racial minorities for that matter.

Deuce addressed most of the other points and I have little to add, but do you actually know any gay people or have a memory that goes back a few years? I don't have any idea how you define "minor" when it comes to gays, but anti-sodomy laws are nothing more than a big old F YOU! to gays that reflected the general consensus of the population. Society was telling them their activities, who they loved, deserved to land them in jail, and that attitude persists at places like AFA, where Bryan Fischer has compared gays to Nazi storm troopers, and worse. The anti-sodomy laws reflected attitudes that were expressed throughout society in general - from jobs to housing, careers cut off, beatings, etc. Families routinely then and now abandoned, disowned, their gay siblings and children, and coming out meant the end of being welcome in church, most social institutions of any kind, and abandoning most of your friends. One couldn't be an open homosexual and attain any position of authority. In many parts of the country, that's still true. It's only recently that coming out wasn't a form of political/career/social suicide, and even now only in some areas.

And now that immense progress has been made, a lot of it through tactics you decry, and open bigotry now has real consequences, you're complaining about those tactics, the result of which allow you to declare that being gay carries with it no meaningful societal cost. It's pretty stunning actually.

Again the "not free from the consequences" schtick, which is basically an excuse for harassing or intimidating people into conforming or shutting up. You can say that "well they can still say and do these things", but the reality is people are much less likely to do or say those things when it results in harassment and intimidation. In that case it basically means people working there who oppose gay marriage realize they either have to keep their beliefs as secret as possible or forget about advancing their careers. People who have done anything that would put them on the public record as opposing gay marriage would realize that they can only advance so far as at a certain point they would risk being driven out of their position by activists. You can say as much as you want that it is about "consequences", but you cannot objectively argue that such consequences mean people are truly free to express their beliefs. When you face the loss of your livelihood and public shaming for expressing a belief, you are not truly free to express that belief.

That is self evidently true, but so what? Your problem isn't that expressing a belief has consequences, you just do not believe that expressing a belief hostile to the rights of homosexuals should have consequences. I'm in the Bible Belt. If I took a public stand and contributed to efforts to, say, strip churches of their tax exempt status, I should expect the very large and influential church community in my area to vigorously oppose me were I to be named CEO of a company that served large numbers of evangelicals. You're whining that taking a stand on controversial issues has consequences for a person in the public eye. Yes, and tomorrow is Thursday....
 
I wholeheartedly agree, but that does not make an ends justify the means approach the right one. Let us be clear, there is nothing even remotely authentic about this flood of challenges to non-recognition of same-sex marriage. This is all a tactic by activist organizations who have opted for staging incidents to get favorable judicial action, recognizing it could be a very long time before more natural or democratic means could achieve the same outcome. Manipulating the system and making up completely new interpretations of the U.S. Constitution to push a political agenda outside of democratic processes is not something anyone should be cheering. Making the constitution say whatever you want it to say in a given case is taking a centuries-old legal document and reducing it to an Etch-a-Sketch.

Then I dont understand...if it is the 'right thing to do' then why should they have to wait at all? Should blacks have had to deal with years and years of Jim Crow? It took them standing up and fighting for their civil rights to finally end it. Women had to fight for their civil rights too. Yes, both fights caused 'inconviences.' Sorry....but how long is too long to wait for your civil rights? Lots of people were put out, and offended, during those protests and legal battles and marches. But how long 'should' they have waited quietly?

And states have democratically voted for SSM....mine is one of them. It's the right thing to do...there's no justification for making them wait just to make segments of society 'more comfortable.' Did they look 'comfortable' in the news reels when they were integrating the first black students into the all-white schools? No...they were pissed. And ignorant as Hell.
 
Using this case to promote anything is pretty low class. This case is about a couple who are dealing with cancer and possible death. Dancing in the isles is extremely tasteless.

So is denying them.
 
No one has a right to legal recognition of a marriage. It is not and was not part of the Constitution explicitly or implicitly. Even the Supreme Court has never explicitly stated that people have a right to legal recognition of a marriage. Some judges may have been fooled by that phony reasoning, but I suspect a large number of them simply saw a plausible legal argument that would allow them to implement an agenda they supported before the case even came to them. Since the court system has no meaningful democratic accountability, this is essentially manipulating the courts to circumvent the democratic process. Legislatures and even referendums are proving successful at getting same-sex marriage legalized and cultural acceptance will be easier over time as a result. Not only does this judicial approach betray democracy and attack the integrity of the constitution, it also will generate a lot more hostility.

And yet...the govt does. (IMO it shouldnt, but it does) So it is discrimination, pure and simple, when they deny gays.

Can you give me any examples of unrelated straight adults being denied marriage? People in jail can get married.
 
wow talk about tramping all over state soverenty. who the hell does this judge think he is.

i guess this judge needs a lesson on the 10th amendment. technically he just violated the 10th amendment.
he should be dismissed from the bench and removed for failure to uphold the constitution which is a failure of office.

I think these judges need to go back to law school so they understand the constitution and their job to uphold the constitution.
they seem to have forgotten that.

these cases should be dismissed as these people do not have standing to sue.

I'm unaware of any states not recognizing 'straight' marriages from other states in any case, event, or situation.
 
You should pay attention to what I am saying. I strongly support legalizing gay marriage. There is a difference between that and supporting efforts to declare it a constitutional right.

.

It's no more or less a Constitutional right than straight marriage. I dont necessarily agree that it is.

OTOH, since the fed govt recognizes marriage and accords benefits, privileges, and legal protections to married straight couples, then it is discriminating against gays if it denies them the same.
 
You are trivializing someone else's rights because it doesn't personally affect you.

It is hardly trivializing to point out that people are not being arrested or being treated differently under the law than other unmarried couples. Inheritance, medical proxy, child custody arrangements, and so on can all be arranged through normal legal procedures that do not include marriage contract. A marriage contract is basically a simpler all-in-on legal instrument that covers all these other contractual arrangements.

Minnesota would like a word with you.

About what? You had Democrats in charge of both houses and the governor's office. In the states we are talking about you have Republican officials in a position to block legislation. Some, such as Michigan, would probably be able to get it passed through a referendum, but it would have to get onto the ballot.

And, bull****. Nothing is being imposed upon you. There is nothing severely upset, nothing radically altered. Two dudes getting married doesn't affect you one bit. This hiding behind phrases like "social order" is just fancy terms from "I DONT PERSONALLY APPROVE."

I personally approve of gay marriage being legalized as a matter of fact. Being in support of it does not mean that I fail to recognize it is a big shift in social standards. The movement to allow two men or two women to get married to each other under the law is a fairly new phenomena. Historically, while you may find plenty of examples of homosexuality, I do not know of many societies that would recognize a marriage in any legal sense. We still live in a country where most people adhere to a religion that condemns homosexuality as immoral and destructive. Even if societal attitudes have shifted to where a majority support recognizing gay marriage, it is a slim majority and the other side often consists of people who point to their faith, which labels homosexuality as an "abomination" before God. For all the states where it is not recognized and the vast majority of people strongly condemn homosexuality, forcing legal recognition on them through the courts does upset the social order. When it is achieved through the democratic process, you may get grumbles and annoyance from the minority, but nowhere near the same level of hostility you can expect if the Supreme Court decides to overrule the democratic decision of over 30 states.

The religious factor is a big part of the problem as well. While most of the population is religious, much less of the population is devout. It is the latter segment that is truly leading the drive for legalization of gay marriage and the fact they condemn opponents as bigots and generally seek to demonize them creates a conflict between those who strongly adhere to faith and those who do not. Such a thing is not occurring in isolation either. You have the same courts gradually pushing religion out of public life with increasingly restrictive interpretations of the "separation of church and state" legal fiction concocted by judges some time back. Then you have these instances of activist Internet lynch mobs trying to enforce political correctness such as with Phil Robertson or Mozilla.

They said there was a religious basis for opposition to interracial marriage too.

If they did then they presumably did not know too much about their own religion as no condemnation of such a thing exists in any religious that I know about. The religious texts of the Abrahamic faiths, however, explicitly condemn homosexuality. No debate exists on the matter and no one denies it or argues that it is not the case.

And, again, bull****. There isn't a conflict between religious freedom and same-sex marriage and there's nothing to accommodate. Unless you're seriously suggesting to me that if I eat shrimp, it's in conflict with someone else's religion.

It is, of course, not the same thing as the whole eating of shrimp thing is a dietary law and not a major issue throughout the texts of the Abrahamic faiths. Homosexuality is explicitly condemned and a major focus of one of the earliest narratives with those engaging in the sin subject to divine retribution that is most severe. No cities are destroyed due to their consumption of shellfish.

Completely wrong. There are literally hundreds, even thousands of benefits at the state and federal level that cannot be duplicated by a contract.

Since you are throwing out such an incredible figure, perhaps you would be willing to provide a significant list of examples.

No, under any objective interpretation they do not comply. The constitutional test for a gender-based classification is substantially related to furthering an important state interest.

You see, this is part of the problem with how the Supreme Court has expanded its power. No constitutional test exists in the actual amendment. Were you to look at the context of when the amendments were written, the whole idea of equal protection was that no group should be singled out for a lighter or harsher form of justice under the law due to prejudicial attitudes. It has since been expanded to cover things it was never intended to cover. That is mostly because the Supreme Court, back in the early days of the United States, made a partisan political power grab in giving itself sole authority over interpreting the constitution and that has since lead to the Supreme Court essentially becoming a body where anything it says becomes law that can only be overturned through a cumbersome amendment process. You have the Supreme Court inventing law by issuing interpretations that have no viable basis in the actual text of the constitution and every new decision becomes a new precedent that can lead to further inventions. In this case the "gender-based classification" argument is comically absurd and does not even adhere to the spirit of the original decision in creating such an inventive loophole, because "sexual orientation" was not provided as a legitimate basis for invoking strict scrutiny.

You claimed to be able to identify a compelling state interest for same-sex marriage bans.

Discouraging relationships that by their very nature do not involve procreation.

Bans against polygamy are not done on any religious basis.

Then what basis would you say is used?

Gender is easy to identify

Exactly my point. Interracial marriage bans would always be vague by their nature and create all sorts of opportunities for arbitrary decisions. That would also make it a due process issue as people should be assured that any law will be clear and consistent. Since you are unlikely to have any serious hassles enforcing a law saying only marriages between a man and a woman can be legally recognized, the same constitutional argument does not apply.
 
Deuce addressed most of the other points and I have little to add, but do you actually know any gay people or have a memory that goes back a few years?
In fact, I have a cousin who is a lesbian and even got married out of state, though she has since separated. The whole thing was a big blow-up in my extended family given that I live in a deeply conservative state and my family includes many devout Christians.
I don't have any idea how you define "minor" when it comes to gays, but anti-sodomy laws are nothing more than a big old F YOU! to gays that reflected the general consensus of the population.
The case in question resulted in a fine amounting to less than $200 for each and the law was very rarely enforced. Not that those individual cases are acceptable, but it is not even remotely akin to the kind of extreme and systemic legal oppression that was faced by racial minorities in the 1960's.
And now that immense progress has been made, a lot of it through tactics you decry, and open bigotry now has real consequences, you're complaining about those tactics, the result of which allow you to declare that being gay carries with it no meaningful societal cost.
Where did I say "being gay" has "no meaningful societal cost"? I was pointing to the legal costs, which is what matters in this discussion when you are comparing it to the civil rights movement of the 1960's.
That is self evidently true, but so what? Your problem isn't that expressing a belief has consequences, you just do not believe that expressing a belief hostile to the rights of homosexuals should have consequences. I'm in the Bible Belt. If I took a public stand and contributed to efforts to, say, strip churches of their tax exempt status, I should expect the very large and influential church community in my area to vigorously oppose me were I to be named CEO of a company that served large numbers of evangelicals. You're whining that taking a stand on controversial issues has consequences for a person in the public eye.
I do not think anyone should be intimidated by a mob into conforming their views to those held by the mob or intimidated into keeping their views secret. Unfortunately, there really can be no viable legal means to solve that problem except when the form of intimidation is so extreme as to constitute a crime. You just have to change the culture.
Then I dont understand...if it is the 'right thing to do' then why should they have to wait at all?
It is not causing them serious problems and the problems that could arise from the Supreme Court inventing a "constitutional" rationale to make every state recognize it would likely cause far more problems.
Should blacks have had to deal with years and years of Jim Crow? It took them standing up and fighting for their civil rights to finally end it. Women had to fight for their civil rights too.
As noted, those are not even remotely the same as what we are talking about. Not recognizing gay marriage is not even remotely comparable to legally-mandated segregation or being denied the right to vote. Gay pride events and parades go on all over the country with no one sending out the dogs or firehoses.
 
Lursa said:
Then I dont understand...if it is the 'right thing to do' then why should they have to wait at all?

It is not causing them serious problems and the problems that could arise from the Supreme Court inventing a "constitutional" rationale to make every state recognize it would likely cause far more problems.

The OP clearly illustrates it is. I also know, personally, of a case where a woman died, alone, because her partner was not allowed into her hospital room. Obviously it is not singular and also not up to you to judge what is and is not 'serious.' Every custody case between same sex partners is exceedingly important, every single one. Not only that, the denial of SSM is wrong, period and to write that equality and fairness would 'cause far more problems' as a justification for not doing the right thing? Please, that was indeed an excuse during earlier fights for civil rights...which you also choose to disassociate from.

Lursa said:
Should blacks have had to deal with years and years of Jim Crow? It took them standing up and fighting for their civil rights to finally end it. Women had to fight for their civil rights too.

In fact, I have a cousin who is a lesbian and even got married out of state, though she has since separated. The whole thing was a big blow-up in my extended family given that I live in a deeply conservative state and my family includes many devout Christians. The case in question resulted in a fine amounting to less than $200 for each and the law was very rarely enforced. Not that those individual cases are acceptable, but it is not even remotely akin to the kind of extreme and systemic legal oppression that was faced by racial minorities in the 1960's. Where did I say "being gay" has "no meaningful societal cost"? I was pointing to the legal costs, which is what matters in this discussion when you are comparing it to the civil rights movement of the 1960's. I do not think anyone should be intimidated by a mob into conforming their views to those held by the mob or intimidated into keeping their views secret. Unfortunately, there really can be no viable legal means to solve that problem except when the form of intimidation is so extreme as to constitute a crime. You just have to change the culture. It is not causing them serious problems and the problems that could arise from the Supreme Court inventing a "constitutional" rationale to make every state recognize it would likely cause far more problems. As noted, those are not even remotely the same as what we are talking about. Not recognizing gay marriage is not even remotely comparable to legally-mandated segregation or being denied the right to vote. Gay pride events and parades go on all over the country with no one sending out the dogs or firehoses.

Seriously, give me an example of where people are being intimidated into supporting SSM? LOL

Yes, people have had to fight for their civil rights, but I spoke of inconvenience. You want intimidation? Let's talk about lynchings, being soaked with hoses and splattered with spoiled vegetables, and being beaten to a pulp (for reference: blacks, women, gays)....dont see the people objecting to those civil rights being subjected to those things.

As history shows, maturity can be painful and there were plenty of objections and 'inconveniences' when blacks and women got were accorded their civil rights....society DID adapt. Again...why should gays have to wait even longer for society 'to do the right thing?'
 
I'm unaware of any states not recognizing 'straight' marriages from other states in any case, event, or situation.

we are not talking about straight marriage.

we are talking about where one states laws superscedes anothers which is unconstitutional.
 
we are not talking about straight marriage.

Sure we are, as the discussion talks about consistent and equal application of the law.

we are talking about where one states laws superscedes anothers which is unconstitutional.

Using some straight marriages as an example. Some states allow 1st cousin Civil Marriages, some do not. Some states allow common law Civil Marriages some do not. In New Hampshire a girl as young as 13 can get Civilly Married, in other states it could be 16 or 18.

However if a 1st cousin marriage is entered into in another state EVERY state recognizes that Civil Marriage as valid. If a couple enters into a Common Law Civil Marriage they are recognized in valid even if they move to a State that doesn't allow for Common Law Civil Marriages. If a couple is married in New Hampshire and later moves to another State, even if the girl is under age for that State the Civil Marriage remains valid.

The ONLY exception that has been provided targets those in same-sex Civil Marriages to be exempt from the Full Faith and Credit clause are marriages based on the gender composition of the couple and that is because Congress exercised the "Effect thereof" provisions of that clause when it passed the Federal DOMA in 1996. (Section 3 was ruled unconstitutional, but Section 2 the "Effect thereof" provision was not part of that decision.)



>>>>
 
Sure we are, as the discussion talks about consistent and equal application of the law.



Using some straight marriages as an example. Some states allow 1st cousin Civil Marriages, some do not. Some states allow common law Civil Marriages some do not. In New Hampshire a girl as young as 13 can get Civilly Married, in other states it could be 16 or 18.

However if a 1st cousin marriage is entered into in another state EVERY state recognizes that Civil Marriage as valid. If a couple enters into a Common Law Civil Marriage they are recognized in valid even if they move to a State that doesn't allow for Common Law Civil Marriages. If a couple is married in New Hampshire and later moves to another State, even if the girl is under age for that State the Civil Marriage remains valid.

The ONLY exception that has been provided targets those in same-sex Civil Marriages to be exempt from the Full Faith and Credit clause are marriages based on the gender composition of the couple and that is because Congress exercised the "Effect thereof" provisions of that clause when it passed the Federal DOMA in 1996. (Section 3 was ruled unconstitutional, but Section 2 the "Effect thereof" provision was not part of that decision.)



>>>>

you can talk about straight marriage all you want to that has nothing to do with the topic.

we are talking about one states law superceding another which according to the constitution of the US is illegal.
if you want to talk about that i will be more than happy to discuss. if you want to discuss something else create a new thread.

MA says gays can marry.
IN recognizes marriage between a man and a women. A judge cannot make a state violate it's own constitution and neither can MA make another state violate it's own constitution.
I even quoted the rulings either a page or two back that shows this to be the case.
 
you can talk about straight marriage all you want to that has nothing to do with the topic.

we are talking about one states law superceding another which according to the constitution of the US is illegal.
if you want to talk about that i will be more than happy to discuss. if you want to discuss something else create a new thread.

MA says gays can marry.
IN recognizes marriage between a man and a women. A judge cannot make a state violate it's own constitution and neither can MA make another state violate it's own constitution.


Using your states, it's unconstitutional for IN to recognize 1st Cousin Civil Marriages from MA?

It's unconstitutional for IN to recognize underage Civil Marriages from MA?

It's unconstitutional for IN to recognized Common Law Civil Marriages from MA?


I even quoted the rulings either a page or two back that shows this to be the case.


I must have missed it, I just looked and can't find it. Could you provide the post number of this thread where the SCOTUS has said that States can selectively recognize some legal Civil Marriages but not other legal Civil Marriages?



>>>>
 
In fact, I have a cousin who is a lesbian and even got married out of state, though she has since separated. The whole thing was a big blow-up in my extended family given that I live in a deeply conservative state and my family includes many devout Christians.

And you're not aware of the hardships that I listed and you failed to quote? If you're not, maybe spend a bit of time talking to people in the gay community. What you trivialize isn't actually trivial, unless you're not one of them, don't know what they went and still go through, and don't care enough to find out.

The case in question resulted in a fine amounting to less than $200 for each and the law was very rarely enforced. Not that those individual cases are acceptable, but it is not even remotely akin to the kind of extreme and systemic legal oppression that was faced by racial minorities in the 1960's.

I'm not sure what the point is. If it's not as bad as what blacks faced from when they were brought over here in chains until a decade or two after the Civil Rights Acts were passed, then any hardship and unacceptable discrimination is trivial, meaningless in the big picture, not worth caring about? Why oh why won't the gays just accept their second class status and shut up about it???!!!


Where did I say "being gay" has "no meaningful societal cost"? I was pointing to the legal costs, which is what matters in this discussion when you are comparing it to the civil rights movement of the 1960's.

Whatever it takes I guess to dismiss their concerns as trivial, to you, who bears none of their burdens.

I do not think anyone should be intimidated by a mob into conforming their views to those held by the mob or intimidated into keeping their views secret.

What is the purpose of the right to free speech, to protest?

Besides, I know you cannot agree with your own statement because I can't imagine you defending the right of a white supremacist to spout his views without consequence and serve without protest in a position in the public eye. It would be easier to defend your position if you just admitted the obvious and you just want the gay to shut up.

Unfortunately, there really can be no viable legal means to solve that problem except when the form of intimidation is so extreme as to constitute a crime. You just have to change the culture.

That is of course the purpose of public protests - change the culture, assign a cost to holding positions opposed by the "mob." I don't care what the subject is - this is why we HAVE free speech and the right to protest. But if you had a single clue about the gay rights movement, another leg on the stool is the wave of public and private figures coming out, and with that people realizing that gays are like everyone else, but gay. The handful of professional athletes coming out is part of this effort. For some reason you feel entitled to dictate the tactics and terms of the debate for OTHER PEOPLE to fight for their rights.

It is not causing them serious problems and the problems that could arise from the Supreme Court inventing a "constitutional" rationale to make every state recognize it would likely cause far more problems.

Cause more problems for whom? People like you, or gays? Because I don't think the gay community needs advice from someone who dismisses their concerns as trivial, who therefore could not care less whether those goals are achieved, then proceeds to tell them the allowable tactics they may use for achieving their trivial goals.

Besides, what I expect will happen if the SC 'invents' a requirement that states recognize gay marriages performed in other states like states recognize all other marriages is about what happened when the military began allowing gays to serve openly. All but those deeply invested in denying them the right to marry and who actively search for opportunities to be outraged and offended will go on with their lives and not notice a damn thing. Gays now living together will now, some of them,...... live together as married!

A guy I associate with nearly every day got married to his partner in Maryland last year. If my state recognizes his marriage, it will have the same effect on my life as the ceremony in Maryland - a goose egg, nothing, no change at all in my life or to my marriage of 22 years. He's happy about it! Good for him, his partner, and their two adopted kids from one of their hometown in S. America!

As noted, those are not even remotely the same as what we are talking about. Not recognizing gay marriage is not even remotely comparable to legally-mandated segregation or being denied the right to vote. Gay pride events and parades go on all over the country with no one sending out the dogs or firehoses.

Duly noted - "Gays - you don't know how good you have it! No one is sending out dogs to attack you! Now quit your whining"
 
I also know, personally, of a case where a woman died, alone, because her partner was not allowed into her hospital room.

Trivial, and Demon of Light knows all about gays and their trivial concerns because he has a gay cousin.
 
The religious factor is a big part of the problem as well. While most of the population is religious, much less of the population is devout. It is the latter segment that is truly leading the drive for legalization of gay marriage and the fact they condemn opponents as bigots and generally seek to demonize them creates a conflict between those who strongly adhere to faith and those who do not. Such a thing is not occurring in isolation either. You have the same courts gradually pushing religion out of public life with increasingly restrictive interpretations of the "separation of church and state" legal fiction concocted by judges some time back. Then you have these instances of activist Internet lynch mobs trying to enforce political correctness such as with Phil Robertson or Mozilla.

If they did then they presumably did not know too much about their own religion as no condemnation of such a thing exists in any religious that I know about. The religious texts of the Abrahamic faiths, however, explicitly condemn homosexuality. No debate exists on the matter and no one denies it or argues that it is not the case.

It is, of course, not the same thing as the whole eating of shrimp thing is a dietary law and not a major issue throughout the texts of the Abrahamic faiths. Homosexuality is explicitly condemned and a major focus of one of the earliest narratives with those engaging in the sin subject to divine retribution that is most severe. No cities are destroyed due to their consumption of shellfish.
Again, not relevant. You're picking and choosing which parts of which religion are important enough to be "in conflict," and therefore it's acceptable for the government to impose that restriction on everyone. It's absurd. We're going to decide the law of the United States on how much God dislikes a particular action? Does it work for other religions? If the single core tenet of my religion is that women must wear hats made from ducks, and all who fail to do so burn in hell, is it in conflict with my religion if that's not the law? Can I be exempt from food safety laws in my restaurant if I truly believe at my core that all illness is the will of God?

Of course not. This is America, and that's not how we do things. Funny how it's "state sovereignty" when someone wants to do what Christians want, but it's not state sovereignty when a state wants to make discrimination on the basis of sexuality illegal. (which is the issue in these bakery cases)

I'd also point out that no cities were destroyed because of homosexuality either. You are referring to stories in a book, not actual history.
Since you are throwing out such an incredible figure, perhaps you would be willing to provide a significant list of examples.
That link was already given to you.
You see, this is part of the problem with how the Supreme Court has expanded its power. No constitutional test exists in the actual amendment. Were you to look at the context of when the amendments were written, the whole idea of equal protection was that no group should be singled out for a lighter or harsher form of justice under the law due to prejudicial attitudes. It has since been expanded to cover things it was never intended to cover. That is mostly because the Supreme Court, back in the early days of the United States, made a partisan political power grab in giving itself sole authority over interpreting the constitution and that has since lead to the Supreme Court essentially becoming a body where anything it says becomes law that can only be overturned through a cumbersome amendment process. You have the Supreme Court inventing law by issuing interpretations that have no viable basis in the actual text of the constitution and every new decision becomes a new precedent that can lead to further inventions. In this case the "gender-based classification" argument is comically absurd and does not even adhere to the spirit of the original decision in creating such an inventive loophole, because "sexual orientation" was not provided as a legitimate basis for invoking strict scrutiny.
Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a gender-based classification, I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

Discouraging relationships that by their very nature do not involve procreation.
If procreation is a compelling state interest, then infertile couples and elderly couples should have marriages annulled, right? Or couples who simply do not wish to have children? No, that would be silly. Besides, banning same-sex marriage does not actually further this interest.You think homosexuals go "Welp, can't marry a dude, so I'll marry a woman and have kids!"

Then what basis would you say is used?
Number of persons in a contract.

Exactly my point. Interracial marriage bans would always be vague by their nature and create all sorts of opportunities for arbitrary decisions. That would also make it a due process issue as people should be assured that any law will be clear and consistent. Since you are unlikely to have any serious hassles enforcing a law saying only marriages between a man and a woman can be legally recognized, the same constitutional argument does not apply.
"It's hard to define" is not how these constitutional arguments work.
 
you can talk about straight marriage all you want to that has nothing to do with the topic.

we are talking about one states law superceding another which according to the constitution of the US is illegal.
if you want to talk about that i will be more than happy to discuss. if you want to discuss something else create a new thread.

MA says gays can marry.
IN recognizes marriage between a man and a women. A judge cannot make a state violate it's own constitution and neither can MA make another state violate it's own constitution.
I even quoted the rulings either a page or two back that shows this to be the case.

?? The courts have already overrulled/changed state constitutions with regard to SSM.

It's a shame it will happen too late in that state for this couple.
 
And you're not aware of the hardships that I listed and you failed to quote? If you're not, maybe spend a bit of time talking to people in the gay community. What you trivialize isn't actually trivial, unless you're not one of them, don't know what they went and still go through, and don't care enough to find out.



I'm not sure what the point is. If it's not as bad as what blacks faced from when they were brought over here in chains until a decade or two after the Civil Rights Acts were passed, then any hardship and unacceptable discrimination is trivial, meaningless in the big picture, not worth caring about? Why oh why won't the gays just accept their second class status and shut up about it???!!!




Whatever it takes I guess to dismiss their concerns as trivial, to you, who bears none of their burdens.

Trivial is your word, not mine. Were I to say that handling a murder case is different from handling petty theft, would you suggest I was trivializing theft? I happen to believe the severity of the mistreatment should determine the severity of the response.

What is the purpose of the right to free speech, to protest?

The purpose of free speech is to allow people to dissent from their government to call out actual abuses by corporations to campaign for changes in their situation. Allowing free speech does mean allowing certain things you might consider unseemly, but it should not be used an excuse to destroy people's reputations or livelihoods because you disagree with their political views.

Besides, I know you cannot agree with your own statement because I can't imagine you defending the right of a white supremacist to spout his views without consequence and serve without protest in a position in the public eye.

The situations are not comparable. I would say the incidents we have seen are more comparable to the Paula Deen situation and, in case you are wondering, I do feel the same way about her treatment as I do about these cases.

It would be easier to defend your position if you just admitted the obvious and you just want the gay to shut up.

I am not suggesting anyone shut up. They can criticize people and they can challenge their views, but that is different from threatening boycotts and waging campaigns against someone for having the wrong opinion. Were he running for public office that would mean something, but business is different. You start shutting people out of employment opportunities for having the wrong political opinion, even when it is not openly expressed, then you are subjecting all businesses to a litmus test where a person's ability to become employed is directly tied to whether they have the right political views. I do not agree with that sort of situation and neither should you.

That is of course the purpose of public protests - change the culture, assign a cost to holding positions opposed by the "mob."

A culture that is changed through threats and intimidation is not a free culture at all.

Besides, what I expect will happen if the SC 'invents' a requirement that states recognize gay marriages performed in other states like states recognize all other marriages is about what happened when the military began allowing gays to serve openly.

Again, not the same thing. What we are talking about here would be the Supreme Court decreeing from on high, with no meaningful accountability or oversight for their decision, a definition of marriage that directly runs afoul of the core religious beliefs of nearly half the country. There many things I can see happening

Again, not relevant. You're picking and choosing which parts of which religion are important enough to be "in conflict," and therefore it's acceptable for the government to impose that restriction on everyone. It's absurd. We're going to decide the law of the United States on how much God dislikes a particular action? Does it work for other religions? If the single core tenet of my religion is that women must wear hats made from ducks, and all who fail to do so burn in hell, is it in conflict with my religion if that's not the law? Can I be exempt from food safety laws in my restaurant if I truly believe at my core that all illness is the will of God?

Are you done beating on strawmen? The religious individual is the one being forced to do something, not the other way around.

Of course not. This is America, and that's not how we do things. Funny how it's "state sovereignty" when someone wants to do what Christians want, but it's not state sovereignty when a state wants to make discrimination on the basis of sexuality illegal. (which is the issue in these bakery cases)

I am fine with discrimination being illegal with religious exemptions, but it is not really about discrimination. A person is being asked to do something that conflicts with a core religious belief. People should be able to say "that's against my religion" when asked to perform a task without being sued and their livelihood destroyed as a result. Restaurants not serving people who are gay or employers firing people for being gay is one thing, but we are talking about making someone bake and decorate a cake for a ceremony celebrating something that goes against a person's religion.

If procreation is a compelling state interest, then infertile couples and elderly couples should have marriages annulled, right? Or couples who simply do not wish to have children? No, that would be silly.

Explicitly restricting legal marriages only to those who can procreate would be invasive. Restricting legal marriage to a male and female couple is clear and consistent. The special arrangements involved in marriage incentivize a committed relationship, which is more conducive to procreation. Mind you, this has been explicitly stated in Supreme Court rulings as a basis for the special status of legal marriage. They would not be on unsound legal grounds to make that argument. It would also not be unsound scientifically as committed sexual relationships are generally viewed, even in nature, as about obtaining offspring.

Number of persons in a contract.

People often have contracts with multiple parties at the same time or separately. Amending existing contracts to accommodate new contracts is also not abnormal. The argument would have to be really good.

"It's hard to define" is not how these constitutional arguments work.

Void for vagueness | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
I think if every sane/remotely intelligent, anti-gay marriage individual spend 2 hours alone with an average gay man/woman...I think they would drop their objection to gay marriage.

Any two sane adults should be able to marry each other...period.
 
Are you done beating on strawmen? The religious individual is the one being forced to do something, not the other way around.
Forced to gay marry? Oh no!

I am fine with discrimination being illegal with religious exemptions, but it is not really about discrimination. A person is being asked to do something that conflicts with a core religious belief. People should be able to say "that's against my religion" when asked to perform a task without being sued and their livelihood destroyed as a result. Restaurants not serving people who are gay or employers firing people for being gay is one thing, but we are talking about making someone bake and decorate a cake for a ceremony celebrating something that goes against a person's religion.
And making me comply with food safety laws goes against my core religious beliefs. The existence of restaurants that discriminate against homosexuals goes against my core religious belief. Making me give flight instruction to Jews goes against my core religious beliefs. Making me comply with aviation safety laws designed to protect my passengers goes against my core religious beliefs.

Who the **** are you to pick and choose which religious beliefs get exemptions? Why only yours?

Why is your religious belief exempting you from any law you don't like, but my secular opinion doesn't exempt me from anything I don't like?
Explicitly restricting legal marriages only to those who can procreate would be invasive. Restricting legal marriage to a male and female couple is clear and consistent.
Now you've back pedaled way the **** back. You just said procreation is a compelling state interest, but now you say they shouldn't prohibit infertile couples because that's invasive? Sorry, you just torpedoed your own argument here. It's invasive to prevent homosexual couples from marriage for exactly the same reason as it is for infertile couples.

More importantly, restricting marriage to a man and a woman does not further the interest of procreation, therefore the equal protection test is not passed.

The special arrangements involved in marriage incentivize a committed relationship, which is more conducive to procreation. Mind you, this has been explicitly stated in Supreme Court rulings as a basis for the special status of legal marriage. They would not be on unsound legal grounds to make that argument. It would also not be unsound scientifically as committed sexual relationships are generally viewed, even in nature, as about obtaining offspring.
SCOTUS has acknowledged that procreation is one interest in marriage, but they have explicitly rejected the notion that procreation is a requirement. Therefore lack of procreation is not a state interest on which same sex marriage, or infertile marriage, can be banned.



People often have contracts with multiple parties at the same time or separately. Amending existing contracts to accommodate new contracts is also not abnormal. The argument would have to be really good.
Not all contracts, and again this is not a protected classification so there is no 14th amendment argument.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom